Good thing Obama (the first U.S. President to ever waste his time doing so) went to Copenhagen to campaign for the U.S. (well... really his quasi-home city) to get the Olympics while we're in the middle of two wars, an economic crisis, and a battle over health care reform, only to not make it past the first round...

Apparently he doesn't have as much "pull" in foreign countries and isn't liked as much outside of the U.S. as many people think...

_________________Adopted Lion: Brandon Pettigrew-Soon to be a huge supporter of the Stickum black market

October 2nd, 2009, 11:34 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Though he failed, it was a GOOD thing for him to go. I'm not going to act like a Lib here and play the same BS back at Obama that they did at Bush. Though he failed, it is exactly what a president SHOULD have done to bring economic impact to his country.

Though he failed, it was a GOOD thing for him to go. I'm not going to act like a Lib here and play the same BS back at Obama that they did at Bush. Though he failed, it is exactly what a president SHOULD have done to bring economic impact to his country.

Steen... No President in HISTORY has ever done this. It's usually done by some lower level diplomat. Given the status of the coutry, I hardly think that NOW is the time to make the Olympics the #1 priority of the White House...

This was just a poor attempt at getting even more money and potential corruption for one of the most corrupt cities in the nation...

October 2nd, 2009, 11:41 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Poor attempt, no question there! But with our economy the way it is, any money coming from outside the US in is the best thing we can get. He failed, miserably, no doubt. I think that every president should have rallied for their country. The Olympics are HUGE and a HUGE income to the country and the local economy. It is a GOOD thing for the president to go there, it is good for our country, it is good for Chicago. Links can be made and will be made, but in general, this is the ONLY real stimulus that he has attempted to do.

Poor attempt, no question there! But with our economy the way it is, any money coming from outside the US in is the best thing we can get. He failed, miserably, no doubt. I think that every president should have rallied for their country. The Olympics are HUGE and a HUGE income to the country and the local economy. It is a GOOD thing for the president to go there, it is good for our country, it is good for Chicago. Links can be made and will be made, but in general, this is the ONLY real stimulus that he has attempted to do.

One problem with this analysis. The Olympics are almost always a net loss to the host. There is so much money poured into building infrastructure, new stadiums, marketing, etc. that most hosts, at best, break even. I don't have all the data right in front of me, but if I remember right, most host countries lose money. I know that all host cities have lost money for the past several olympics. It's one of those things that doesn't actually work, but for some reason people keep believing that it will be a net benefit for them.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Poor attempt, no question there! But with our economy the way it is, any money coming from outside the US in is the best thing we can get. He failed, miserably, no doubt. I think that every president should have rallied for their country. The Olympics are HUGE and a HUGE income to the country and the local economy. It is a GOOD thing for the president to go there, it is good for our country, it is good for Chicago. Links can be made and will be made, but in general, this is the ONLY real stimulus that he has attempted to do.

One problem with this analysis. The Olympics are almost always a net loss to the host. There is so much money poured into building infrastructure, new stadiums, marketing, etc. that most hosts, at best, break even. I don't have all the data right in front of me, but if I remember right, most host countries lose money. I know that all host cities have lost money for the past several olympics. It's one of those things that doesn't actually work, but for some reason people keep believing that it will be a net benefit for them.

That is absolutely true. Bejing lost a ton of cash. It's more the presitge of hosting them, than any hope of financial gain that host countries are looking for. The only real potential gain is bringing in a ton of people that would likely never have came, and HOPE that they come back repeatedly for years to come.

That said, again, we don't need to blow a ton of cash on the Olympics. We don't need to be spending money. This is akin to A.I.G. needing bailout money and having a huge party for executives...

Mixed review. Recent ones were planned awful but the Los Angeles games were done well. I think it depends on the plan.

Steen... It's not about how they're planned. The Bejing Olympics were planned with great detail and those plans were exectued well. Each Olympics is supposed to trump the last (although China will be hard to beat!... what they pulled off was amazing), and they are getting more and more expensive to host.

October 2nd, 2009, 12:31 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Sad that is has become what it has. I can't imagine beating China's craziness. I think that it is possible that they are going to pick the town willing to lose money over the deal, which it doesn't have to be.

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10066Location: Where ever I'm at now

I have two points:

1. I think if Chicago wasn't the city looking to host the Olympics, Obama doesn't go. It's all about his home state and it's biggest city. Obama's a dick. Accept it.

2. While the host cities may lose money during the Olympics, they actually will gain money in time because the structures and facilities they build/upgrade will then be used more and bring in more revenue than they would have previously. More sporting events, more concerts, etc. I believe that would be particularly true here in the U.S. Hosting the Olympics would provide an INSTANT property improvement in that area....something politicians aren't willing to provide funds for unless it involves the global spotlight being on them.

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10066Location: Where ever I'm at now

conversion02 wrote:

The Olypmics are a loss for the host city/country.

The one big net...you're providing a lot of income/jobs for local workers. Construction, cleanup, painting, shopping, food, etc...all local joes...work that isn't outsourced to India, China, Thailand, Mexico, etc.

It DOES help the locals running businesses, but it's the city and the state that lose big time...and ultimately the government and the taxpayers.

Don't they have sales tax in Illinois? If so, then those local businesses are adding to the pockets of the government. And once again, it is the long term impact that has to be taken into account. There might be an immediate loss, but with all the improvements made in facilities and added attractions, I can see where the money would be made back plus.